Grim901I wouldn’t mind a comparison thread with Taranis/nEuron/X-47
Could be interesting, why not make one. Just try to keep it away from a “vs” thread.
Grim901Son of Taranis for the deep strike role. Stealthy UCAVs – if current developments work as hoped. Taranis should fly next year.
Unless it’s already out and about and crashing into wind turbines 😛
Yeah I think the future will lie with Taranis, or possibly a mixed force depending on how long it is until the Tornados need replacing.
Some of the other ideas in the FOAS were just stupid. “Let’s stick cruise missiles on an A400M, that’ll do what everything we need of a deep strike bomber!” – Versatile only in its stupidity.
Grim901Ooops 😮
Sorry about that…The serial numbers for JCA have been asked, sixty six of them.
Sources?
There’s been no announcement whatsoever and the last I checked, the minimum requirement was in the 80’s, not 60’s.
Grim901Sensible thing?!!!!!!!!
The JCA fleet as just been cut to 66 units, add 123 Phoons and the entire RAF manned fast jet from here to 2030 might very well be less than 200 airframes… Sensible?
SIX ****** Sqn´s…
From 31 fast jets sqn´s in 1991, the RAF would be cut to SIX sqn´s in 2025!
Sensible?
Lets just hope that GB inc doesnt go to war alone with a competent foe for the next three decades…And if we look really hard at those three programs what would we find?
One complete disasaster (the Nimrod), another program completely dependent on American political leverage, unless GB buy´s an entire Milstar satelite constelation (expensive) and the third program, Soothsayer, a electronic warfare program aimed at intercepting and decoding highly evolved/advanced/complex enemy electrons, the kind of capability that the Talibans have in massive quantities (Radar, highly advanced comunications sets, satelite networks, etc), wait, they DONT have these capabilities, and Soothsayer doesnt bring ANYTHING to ASTAN that the RAF doesnt have right now…And why the Phoon hasnt been in Astan?
Dont know, but the indecent haste that HM MOD displayed in slashing the Tornado Fmk3 fleet and the QRA mission (four fast jets sqn´s, minimum) might have something to do with it…
It wouldnt be a very sensible “thing” to have Blackjacks and Bears flying over, well… Edinburgh… without being “escorted”, would it?
Welcome to the world of sarcasm. Either you don’t understand it or didn’t pick up on it in my last post. Try reversing every opinion there to find what I really meant.
And since when were we down to 66 F35’s? First i’ve heard of it.
Grim901What I’d like
C0 FULL order of T45s (so another 6x then)
C1 (10x) Astutes with SCALP or TACTOM
C2 (10x) T45 without long range radar, with Artisan in place of SAMPSON, with CAMM in place of ‘outer’ rows of ASTER and inner row FFBNW, ALL other meddling resisted
C3 (20x) Khareefs with Mk8, fully enclosed work deck FFBNW CAAM, SeaRAM, 2 twin Harpoon racks
If the RN ordered this I’d almost be as angry at them as I usually am when they order nothing. Not only is it poorly thought out and wholly unfeasible, it’ll radically alter the force structure of the Navy AND waste taxpayers money.
What I think we’ll get
C0 nothing new
C1 (6x) some form of FREMM, meddled and fiddled to within an inch of its life, price goes up and we get 6 (and a statement ‘due to increase in capabilities blah blah blah’) FFBNW everything except a Mk8 and one (or at best a pair of) Wildcat(s)
C2 (6x) MEKO 200 with repeat of ALL of the ANZAC’s problems AND FFBNW everything except a Mk8 and a Wildcat
C3 (6x) Khareefs in PFI deal costing overall the same as buying 30 of them outrightOh and CVFs will be cancelled when RAF ‘prove’ that an MR4 can fly twice around the globe unrefuelled and pull 9G sustained
That’s below even my worst predictions. I think CVF is too far gone to be cancelled. And do you mean and MRA4? In which case, what are you smoking? The rest is just entirely wrong, and beyond the stupidity of even our MoD. To reach the point where that is what we get would require some kind of cataclysm occurring at Abbeywood and the DPA being replaced by a bus full of special needs goats.
Grim901Oh no. If the Brits do go ahead with that, they will pay a healthy part of the German Tranche 3B deliveries, as the will have to compensate. Saving money for the Luftwaffe and getting the planes will make Mrs. Merkel happy.
Very little make Mrs Merkel happy, but getting the British to pay for German combat aircraft is enough to make anyone smirk.
This, IMO, is probably what Torpy meant. He’s been warned not to expect to get those 24 airframes tacked on to T3B, & he’s adjusted numbers accordingly. Therefore, 208 total – of which one has already been lost.
He probably used the 123 number as a shock tactic, The RAF would never get that few aircraft in total, not even now with the budget pressures. Think about it, the Typhoons are yet to be used on ops in the Mid East, so it is safe. Soothsayer, Nimrod’s and Reaper’s (items which will make a difference in Afghanistan) have quite rightly been cut. Wouldn’t want to show the country up by doing the sensible thing now should we!
Grim901Urgh, yet more convolution is added to the saga that is Tyohoon procurement numbers.
I dread the thought of the RAF taking over the RN fighter force, mainly because the RAF have made it quite clear what they think of the carrier fleet and I’m sure they’ll do everything in their power to limit the amount of time/training that a future RAF controlled F35 force could do on the carriers.
Grim901This is actually why I am a great fan of the A160 Hummingbird – it has the potential to offer a long endurance airborne surveillance capability, yet operate off standard escorts. The prospect of having sustainable, though basic, AEW coverage, operating off frigates and destroyers is a game changer. It is another reason why I am a believer in ensuring as high a capability as possible is available for the C-1 and C-2, even if it is very much a ‘for but not with’.
As discovered to our cost, the Type 21 frigates were built to a pretty basic spec, with the intention of making them affordable. Unfortunately, this meant having almost no margin for growth, and thus when it became apparent that they needed ‘beefed up’, this simply wasn’t viable. My fear is that C-1, -2 and -3 risk going down this same path – deliberately building them with limitations to keep costs down and numbers up.
I presume that the Hummingbird has a higher service ceiling than a manned helicopter as well since it doesn’t require pressurisation? It might be worth looking into for the CVF. It would just be more viable if the technology had a matured a little more than it is now.
As for the C1/2 issue, I doubt we’re going to see ships that don’t have room for growth, I think that mistake won’t be repeated. The T45 and CVF for example have intentionally been given extra room to allow for growth and future proofing. I think what we will see, on C2 especially, is a lot of that favourite RN phrase, Fitted for but not with. That way it will be cheap (a bigger hull doesn’t cost that much more compared to all the weapons and sensors etc.) but can be beefed up if the need or money becomes available.
Grim901The other thing to bear in mind is the modern gunline. If the ships have to be on the line at around 25km, then it’s pretty risky (witness INS Hanit), but if you can stand off around 50-60km, then it is at least a little safer. If we end up in something like a Falklands scenario (not necessarily the Falklands specifically, just a big important op), then having the ability to have a dozen ships on the gunline is worthwhile.
Jonesy: as an aside, since you have infinitely more knowledge of this than me, do you feel that the GCM AO-3s could be upgraded to take advantage of the newer airburst rounds? I know they are 30mm x 170 not the 30mm x 173 that Oerlikon/Rheinmetall offer ABM/AHEAD rounds for, but I doubt adapting the rounds would be a show stopper. Any thoughts?
With a 155 a stand off range of 50-60km is feasibly with Extended range rounds. And as for the 30×170 instead of 30×173, I’m not an expert in naval weapons but I don’t think knocking 3mm off the length of a round would be that big of a deal.
Without AEW and data handover there is no way an AAW escort can protect its ducklings while standing off. The limited detection range against seaskimmers makes that impossible.
And even with AEW a T45 with just 48-something Aster can run out of ammo real fast.
There is no way around that all larger ships have to be able to protect themselves from anti-ship effectors. “Offboard” protection just doesn’t work. A T45 will be busy protecting UAV and helicopters from enemy aerial action during a landing, no time to play nanny for landing ships.
Not quite following where that fits into the 155 vs Mk8 debate we were having? I think we’re all in agreement that C1/C2 etc. should have CAMM etc. so what’s the problem?
Throw it away for something which offers more useable performance for the JOB IN HAND. MK8 may well be a viable weapon for a frigate or destroyer but doesn’t seem to offer much to a C3, there’s no real reason for it to be shooting at anything that requires the range or punch of a MK8 and if it did chances are you should of sent a larger vessel in its place. In short I can’t really see much useable mission capability in installing a MK8 on a C3, its overkill, kind of like putting a Lamborghini engine in a Ford Cortina.
Agreed. My way of looking at it is that the 155mm is a replacement for the Mk8 to do the same job, just with enhancements, so any ship you wouldn’t want or need a 155mm on, doesn’t need a Mk8 either.
And how did you know how I modified my car?!?! 😉
Grim901That hinges on the fact that the Mk8 would be replaced on the vessels that dont need the 155. Thats a long way from assured. The program to install the mod1 gun is still under way and T45’s are being completed with it now. Mod1 could easily, given historical precedent, see the T45’s through to the end of their lives. There really is that much life left in the weapon.
Given the requirements on the limited no. of T45’s and the comparitive value of the Sea Viper – if the ship only ever uses its main gun to fire starshell – I think its a long way from assured that there will be any urgency to go to the expense of backfitting 155 to the Darings.
You think that buying a new weapons system, one that offers few useable advantages over the exisiting unit, and forcing a service to develop an entirely new logistics and support setup is the wiser option?. As stated we know the Mk8 – we know how to service it, have all the tools, parts and most importantly experience to keep it operational. We know the capabilities of the mount – we know the rounds and the performance figures. We have the ammunition and are practised handling it. Why, if the mount is still fully capable of delivering the results, would we wish to throw that away?.
Answer is we would throw it away for something offering considerably more useable performance. That is the 155 on gunline vessels. For T45 and C3 that doesnt apply though!. No matter what C3 is not going to get 155 so it means throwing the Mk8 away for a system that offers no more useable mission capability and, in some regards, far less.
I think that because the T45’s have no main armament outside of Sea Viper it is more important, not less, to enhance it’s capabilities with the 155mm gun. But that is a personal viewpoint that I doubt we’ll see eye to eye on. Also keep in mind that with the shrinking size of the navy, it may be necessary for the T45’s to join the gunline, as horrible as the thought of putting one in harms way may be.
There are advantages of the 155 over the current gun in that R&D funds from the navy can be combined with those of the army to deliver new and better ammunition types, as opposed to a solely navy effort. It also adds range, which is always useful.
I think you’re looking at the supply chain in the wrong way. Instead of focusing on the navy costs, think of the MoD costs as a whole. These decrease when 2 services are using the same system and will after a period of time, compensate for the cost of switching over from 2 systems. And sicne the support and logistics chain becomes shared, it doesn’t have to be built from scratch as you suggest.
I’m sure the Mk8’s would last through to the end of the T45’s lifespan, but there are many benefits that outweigh that fact that will lead to savings and enhanced capability in the long run.
I agree that the Mk8 offers more capability for C3 than the alternatives, but we can always give ships more capability, we have to draw the line somewhere and I think, for the roles it is required of, that a Mk8 won’t be necessary anymore than the 155 will, since the 155 is effectively a replacement of the same capability (with enhancements).
Grim901I like the suggestion of putting the 40mm on C3, it can’t be much worse than those other calibres people suggested, and has similar support benefits to the T45 in that the army use the same ammunition.
Grim901Most definitely, i should have said if and not when! Ultimately i don’t see a requirement for any larger than about 2.5-2.6% (sustained high intensity operations even if only pongos and crab air does require more money than HMGOV is willing to spend at this moment in time)
Actually with the state of the armed forces currently, the massive budget deficit leading to vital programs being cut and an urgent need to get more equipment (helos etc) out to Afghanistan, I can see that an increase to 3% would be very useful. I’ve read a lot that recently that we are getting a reputation in Afghanistan for trying to do things on the cheap, which is true, you find it throughout the MoD. But hey, only our servicemen who suffer.
Grim901Hm, yes, I guess it is just the CG. The AW 139 doesn’t look that flimsy.
Edit: what I would like to see is a deal between Germany and the UK. UK takes NH-90 for their medium helicopter requirenment, and we order Merlin for CSAR (Luftwaffe) and as Seaking replacement (Marine).
Not gonna happen, but one can dream.
Why would we do that? That adds a new helicopter into each countries air forces and the NH90 and Merlin effectively do the same job so it’ll replicate capability. The industrial benefits wouldn’t be that great either, since the UK would end up doing less of the workload. I can’t see any advantages of that one at all.
Grim901Has Saab officially claimed that the Gripen NG’s frontal RCS is less than 0.1m2?
I can’t see that being right. Doesn anyone have a reliable source on this? To put it in perspective i’d heard the Rafale is 2m^2 and Typhoon is 1m^2.
Grim901Isnt the issue there ‘sooner or later’ though?. What if it is later?. The mod0 gun has been in service over three decades and that was a modest mount at the most optimistic description. The mod1 cant be expected to be less viable when it is a very much better mounting.
If 114mm Mk8 mod1 is still a viable weapons system till at least the mid 2030’s and we have a developed logistics and support infrastructure in place why bother replacing it on ships that dont need the 155?. Just because Mk8 is ‘supposed to be replaced by 155’ ?!. Lunacy!!!.
T45 already has Mk8 mod1. It wont be replaced by 155’s for a very long time if at all. Putting a smaller MCG on C3 means 3 calibres to support and the smaller gun offers nothing that the C3 needs….so I ask you why bother with it?.
You’re entire argument seems to rely on T45 not being fitted with a 155mm until some point past 2020.
First off, we don’t know when C3 will start being built, we have no time-scale, so it could be well after 2020.
Second, suppose the 155mm is chosen for C1/C2 and starts being built and fitted to ships at some point after 2012 (enough time for them to finish development?) say on the Type 23’s during their last refit. What if at that point, with the system tested and in use, the govt. does decide to refit them to Type 45 (which seems likely to happen) during their first refit (not sure when that will be but it should be before 2020 right?). You said that the priority would be for Type 23, then C1/C2 then Type 45 but you fail to show your reasoning. I’m sure we can build several (or a lot more) guns per year and we can build and refit more than one ship at a time, so who says the T45 will be operating with the Mk 8 all these years into the future?
I know it may not happen but there is no basis for your argument, there are too many variables.
Yes, we have 6 (nearly 7) destroyers and 17 frigates, but we should still have 10-12 destroyers (we need 5 active at any one time) and 20 frigates (16 T23s and 4 T22)
giving a total of 30-32 escorts, and lets not forget that the FSC programme is not just to replace the frigates, but the Hunts and Sandowns also, giving a total of 45 (not counting Labour cuts) hulls to be replaced, right now we’re looking at 18 plus whatever we get of C3, which, however you look at it, is a massive capability reduction, it’s also a massive blow to our shipbuilding industry.12 Type 45
12 C1
18 C2
18 C3
Actually we don’t need 10-12 destroyers. We have not had 12 operating for quite some time and even then, we don’t need quite so many thanks to the greater capability of the new ships. I agree we need more, but for a requirement of 5, 8 would suffice.
C3 is not part of FSC anymore. And you need to remember that the role that the Hunt’s and Sandown’s undertake has dramatically shifter to require larger more capable ships (2-3000t instead of a few hundred tons). So fewer hulls may not necessarily be a bad thing, especially when we don’t need quite so many now.
As I see it, if we got 8 Type 45’s and the number of C1 and C2 promised (perhaps a slight increase) then we wouldn’t be losing capability. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see the numbers you said and a restoration of the navy to a decent size, but what you’re suggesting would take us back to what we had quite a while ago, not what we have/need now.
When the defence budget breaks 3% that can be a possibility, until then it’s not going to happen.
That’s not happening. The only party who’ve made any kind of commitment to increase spending to those sorts of levels are UKIP.
Sign In
